DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-19 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 1-18 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claim 19 (Group V) in the reply filed on 03/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-18 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected polyangular specular mini-structure (claims 1-15) and methods of manufacturing a polyangular specular mini-structure (claims 16, 17 and 18), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/23/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For appropriate form and consistency in the claim, it Is suggested that the recitation “polyangular specular mini-structure” be amended to read “polyangular, specular, mini-structure”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the structural limitations of the polyangular, specular, mini-structures, does not reasonably provide enablement for claimed stimulation, ion emission and generation of electricity. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The specification does not enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In particular, the disclosure lacks detail regarding the claimed stimulation and mechanism by which ion emission results in the claimed generation of electricity.
Per MPEP 2164.01(a), the factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation, as set forth by in re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) include:
(1) The quantity of experimentation necessary,
(2) The amount of direction or guidance presented in the specification,
(3) The presence or absence of working examples,
(4) The nature of the invention
(5) The state of the prior art,
(6) The relative skill of those in the art,
(7) The predictability or unpredictability of the art, and
(8) The breadth of the claims.
Each of these factors will be addressed as to their relevance to the lack of enablement of the present claims.
(1) The quantity of experimentation necessary
The specification does not define the electrical stimulation conditions. Paragraphs [0011], [0054] and [0060] of the instant published specification disclose the following:
[0011] In one suitable implementation, the facets comprise a sufficient amount of tungsten trioxide to cause ion emission in response to stimulation of the tungsten trioxide with a stimulation current of electricity. According to the disclosure, this stimulation current has a value of 4 amp-hours (Ah), and the amount of tungsten trioxide is selected so as to be responsive to a stimulation current of such magnitude.
[0054] In response to said stimulation current, PES 511 generates supply electricity which is shown in the laser power meter as 2.43 kw for a duration of 0.5 seconds. The supply electricity, in turn may charge ternary polymer lithium battery 505.
[0060] It is expected, from certain tests and related calculations, that by stimulating tungsten trioxide with 4 ah (amp-hours) of electricity, the entire transparent glass sphere will turn into an ionic mirror. Light exits the PES and passes through the mirror group to produce a polar beam, which is reflected billions of times in the mirror sphere. So the sphere is generally completely transparent. When electricity is required, the PES comes into a completely mirror-like state in response to re-stimulation of the tungsten trioxide at a suitable stimulation current, such as 4 amp-hours. Again, when the PES is fully charged and is about to discharge, it will return to the glass state, and all beams of light will leak through transparent glass. A specially designed AI chipset controls the electric current and electronic stimulation associated with this iterative process.
However, the parameter “4 amps-hour (Ah) represents only total charge and does not provide any guidance as to what electrical conditions are necessary to achieve the claimed stimulation (e.g., current, voltage, duration, delivery, etc.). Although the specification provides general indication of output (See para. 0054), it does not disclose the corresponding conditions or how the stimulation is applied.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would need to vary multiple parameters through routine experimentation to determine operable conditions for the claimed stimulation resulting in electricity generation.
(2) The amount of direction or guidance presented in the specification
The instant specification provides general descriptions of the structure of the polyangular, specular mini-structures and identifies various materials (e.g., quartz, silica sand, tungsten trioxide, silicon carbide, silicon oxide). The specification also discloses that stimulation of tungsten trioxide results in emission and electricity generation (see, e.g., paras. 0011-0012). However, the specification does not provide sufficient guidance as to how the claimed stimulation results in ion emission and corresponding electricity generation.
Specifically, the specification does not disclose the operative conditions or relationships between the stimulation parameters, material composition, and the resulting electrical output. The guidance amounts to the disclosure of stimulation of tungsten trioxide under 4 amps-hour (Ah), wherein the amount of tungsten trioxide is selected so as to be responsive to a stimulation current of such magnitude (para. 0011).
Accordingly, the amount of guidance is limited and one of ordinary skill would need to engage in undue experimentation to practice the claimed invention.
(3) The presence or absence of working examples
The specification discloses statements regarding electricity generation, including output values associated with certain sphere sizes (para. 0014), and a reported test result indicating that a “PES 511 generates supply electricity which is shown in the laser power meter as 2.43 kw for a duration of 0.5 seconds” (para. 0054).
However, the specification does not disclose the electrical input conditions corresponding to the reported output, nor does it explain how the claimed stimulation and ion emission results in the claimed electricity generation.
Accordingly, while the specification discloses general statements of performance and a reported test result, it does not provide enabling working examples sufficient to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the claimed method without undue experimentation.
(4) The nature of the invention
The claimed invention involves a combination of optical effects, material properties, and electrical behavior, including stimulation of tungsten trioxide, ion emission, and generation of electricity. While the specification generally describes these concepts, it does not clearly explain how the claimed stimulation leads to ion emission and, in turn, the generation of electricity.
In particular, the specification does not provide sufficient detail regarding the conditions under which these processes occur (i.e., timing, amount, duration, current, etc.).
(5) The state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, and (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art
The specification references conventional solar and concentrator photovoltaic systems (paras. 0002-0004). These systems differ from the claimed invention, which involves stimulation of tungsten trioxide, ion emission, and electricity generation.
The specification does not show that such mechanisms are well understood or predictable in the art. As such, the prior art does not appear to provide guidance that would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the claimed invention. The lack of defined parameters would require one of ordinary skill to engage in undue experimentation.
(8) The breadth of the claims
Claim 19 encompasses a wide range of materials (tungsten trioxide, additives of silicon carbide, single crystal sand, and silicon dioxide), structural configurations (facets of a polyangular, specular, mini-structure, sphere) and operating conditions including the stimulation of tungsten trioxide, ion emission and electricity generation.
While the specification identifies various materials and possible combinations, general descriptions of the structure, output values associated with certain sphere sizes (para. 0014), and a reported test result (para. 0054), it does not provide sufficient guidance as to which combinations and conditions are operative or achieving the claimed stimulation, ion emission, and electricity generation, or the parameters required (e.g., timing, amount, duration, current, etc.) to do so across the full scope of the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19
The limitation “stimulating the tungsten trioxide of the sphere with four amp-hours (Ah) to cause ion emission in response thereto” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. There is no prior recitation of a sphere in the claim. Accordingly, the limitation lacks antecedent basis.
The claim further recites “controlling by suitable software programming the stimulation current”. The term “suitable software programming” is a relative term and the claim does not provide any standard for determining what constitutes “suitable”.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2010/0218806 A1, Arab et al. teaches a polyangular, specular, mini-structure (collector) [para. 0140 and Figure 2], the structure having an interior surface having reflective facets disposed at angular orientations on the interior surface to define a light reflective interior of the chamber [paras. 0140-0141], and an optical-to-electrical module (solar cell) secured relative to the polyangular specular mini-structure to receive the light output and convert the light output into electricity (see Figure 1).
US 8759138 B2, Yang et al. teaches a solar cell receiver for use in a concentrating solar system which concentrates the solar energy onto a solar cell for converting solar energy to electricity (abstract and Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights